When the Wairarapa ballooning tragedy which killed 11 first occurred, I thought it was just incredibly bad luck.

It then emerged the pilot was probably under the influence of cannabis, and I basically blamed the pilot – but thought there was not much you can do if a pilot who is also the owner is stupid enough to do such a thing – that it was a one off.

But it turns out the CAA had complaints in the past and did nothing. That is appalling. The Dom Post reports:

The Civil Aviation Authority took no action when told a balloon pilot had been too “pissed and/or high” to fly, an inquest has been told.

It had also been told Lance Hopping, 53, had cheated on pilot exams and impersonated a CAA official.

And he was still licensed!

Sherriff suggested that if the complaints had been revealed that would have prevented the tragedy.

They included an allegation Hopping had on more than one occasion been too “pissed and/or too high” to fly, causing flights to be suspended.

And nothing happened!

Earlier, a CAA manager said further safety restrictions on commercial balloonists could put some out of business.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 30th, 2014 at 3:00 pm and is filed under New Zealand.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

34 Responses to “CAA must take some responsibility for deaths”

David … I hold a CPL although my piloting days are pretty much over. To some extent the aviation industry is supposed to be self regulating relying on pilot honesty and professionalism. Clearly Hopping possessed neither of those two attributes.

The CAA was wrong to ignore the quite obvious red flags that were to be seen and acted upon. But equally, his peers in the Carterton community share some of the blame. I used to live in the Wairarapa and my contacts tell me that it was reasonably well known that Hopping was pushing the boundaries with his lifestyle behavior. Why didn’t anyone speak up?

I have had some pretty heated debates with Kiwiblog’s Stoner community about this. They refuse to accept that their precious ‘Sacred Herb’ could be responsible for this horrific incident and have vehemently defended this guy..(“Cannabis has never harmed anybody man..”)

longknifes
It is just as likely that any impairment in mr Hoppings flying ability was due to being a drunk.
He was a heavy binge drinker.
This includes the little detail that he was known to drink at least 24 cans of beer a week .But of course this would not fit in with your anti pot bias so is ignored.

This is all background crap.
I have been missing in action for a few days but have yet to see a proper account of the actions on the day and during the disaster.
Anything but a clear explanation of those actions is just an attempt to mislead.

What were the conditions and physical actions and travels that caused to the balloon to catch the wires and once that’s established then you can start on the action and conditions of those in the basket.

I was in Carterton for a few days previous to this and the days were perfect but the day we left by the time we got to Akatarawa Turnoff there was stinking cold southerly coming thru.

Just saying the so far he events have been barely prosecuted other than to attempt to vilify the pilot. Just as the CAA did down south. Indeed they have a record for years of that behavoir both publicly and within the industry.

@ Griff,
He may have consumed 24 cans of beer a week, but he was not seen having an early morning drink before the flight, and as far as I recall alcohol was not cited as a factor.
On the other hand, he was seen smoking before the flight, and it wasn’t an ordinary ciggie.

On the other hand, he was seen smoking before the flight, and it wasn’t an ordinary ciggie.

Was he? all I have seen is that he had pot in his blood
The report states that there is no way to tell when
The impairment for alcohol is cumulative and does not depend on him having drunk even that week.
With pot it would have to have been within 3 hours of the actual mishap according to the science and even then impairment sufficient to cause the accident is inconclusive for a habitual user.

“At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.

To date …, seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers. Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers. Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected.

… The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. … [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.”

“Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

“This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.

… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. … Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a ‘change’ from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect ‘impairment’ in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”

“In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”

“Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor … function. … [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively.”

“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”

“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”

“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”

“Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

… THC’s effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol’s at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC’s effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”

“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)

DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES

“Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”

REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

When Conservation failed and innocent people died, National Party MP and Conservation Minister Denis Marshall said he must accept responsibility for the deaths and nobly resigned, after first ensuring that measures were in place to ensure such a tragedy would never occur again.

When Civil Aviation failed and innocent people died, National Party MP and Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee… *crickets*

Griff- You keep hanging on to your ‘Cannabis has never killed anybody’ line mate (Like a drowning man grasping at straws..)
The rest of us are rightfully disgusted at this Pothead’s reckless disregard for the lives of his clients…

Again
The guy was a piss head
As a piss head drunk or sober he was a risk
you just keep your little mind fuck going longknifes
ignore the fact that as a piss head he should not have been flying at all ever if it makes you feel ok
meantime in the real world we still have hospitals courts jails and morgues full of the result of drunken wankers.

In my view it’s a case of “in addition to” not “instead of” the people responsible.

A Minister is paid handsomely to ensure that their department is functioning properly. Surely a Minister whose department was, on the one hand, responsible for the lives and safety of people and, on the other, for deciding who gets to pursue various professions would, as part of their induction, think to assure themselves that such an important function was being performed correctly?

And, if it failed in such a spectacular fashion, would be leaving no stone unturned in rooting out just what is wrong in his Department… starting by talking to people like some of those above, who have dealings with CAA and seem to have some insight into its problems.

Note: when trying to convince people that smoking and drinking does not affect one’s cognition, it helps not to mistake ‘quite’ for ‘quiet’.

Unless you were telling us you’ve had quite a lot to drink

And for the record… I want my pilot’s mind to be clear of any substance and focused on flying. If the bastard has so much as had an aspirin because he has a headache… next please, because my luck is such that it’d be a precursor to an aneurysm or a stroke and it wouldn’t be fair to take everyone else down with me.

Indeed there was a similar accident in Virginia in May. The pilot and two passengers were killed after their balloon struck power lines and caught fire. Maybe the pilot will be vilified in that case, or maybe a more measured conclusion will be reached.

You may not be aware of the other members of the group that Lance Hopping was involved in. It is known, at least by some people in the town that ‘lifestyle’ led by this group involved a lot more than just alcohol and cannabis, and there were some not very nice people in it. You had to be “initiated” and ‘membership’ was by select word of mouth invitation only …

I don’t believe that the entire town was aware of this group – I was told by a fellow Cartertonian who I worked with here in Wellington, and I heard it from her over here (after the balloon accident). I was shocked by what she told me. I’ve never heard anyone speak of this group over there. If people did know about it they will also know of the type of people involved. And you wouldn’t want to do anything to bring the attention of these people on yourself ever, believe me. I suspect that people kept their mouths shut in order to keep themselves and their families safe.